As someone with gay family (whom I love dearly) I can honestly say: You are simply a vile self-hating human being. I can deal with intelligent discourse but you are just hateful. You hate yourself, enjoy that!—BRF


Would you describe Santorum's comments comparing consensual gay relationships—including my 17 years with my husband—to dog fucking and child rape as "intelligent discourse"? Santorum made vile, hateful remarks at our expense, we made one at his.—Dan


Wow, you wrote back. Im not unimpressed. But you have totally twisted Santorum's words to serve your purpose. His ACTUAL words: "That's NOT to pick on homosexuality. It's NOT, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." So, you're either not that bright at all, or you are dishonest. Your pick.

Conservatives do not dislike gay people. It is merely a statistical fact children raised within the traditional nuclear family are much more likely to receive a higher education, much more likely NOT to live below the poverty line, and much more likely to raise children in a nuclear family who are, in turn, likely to do the same. There's nothing wrong with a presidential candidate promoting those values.

The President has to do what's right for the WHOLE nation, not every individual segment of society. No one is saying don't be gay, NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU DO. Marriage is granted a special status with special priveleges because the value set of the nuclear family is better for our country. Sorry if that pisses you off. I'm sure you are a fine parent, and if you are I would much rather you than some jerk-off wife beater raise kids. But we're talking MACRO, not MICRO.

You would be doing the responsible thing by removing that website. And I would venture to say if you were to put aside the pride of wanting to be right, you would admit your actions have hurt your readership more than helped. So do the right thing. Disagree with class and respect. No one disrespected you.

Thanks for reading with an open mind.—BRF


Santorum has confirmed that he said what he said.

And the studies that conservatives point to that supposedly "prove" kids do better with a mom and and dad are actually studies that compare two-parent families to single-parent families. Kids with two moms or two dads are being raised in... two-parent families. And a mountain of research shows that our kids do just as well—and, as some studies have shown, better (because we rarely become parents by accident; all our kids are wanted kids)—as kids raised by a mom and a dad. Watch Al franken nail a religious conservative attempting to cite those studies here.

And if the state is in the marriage business solely to advance the interests of children... why would the state (two of them: WA and OR) make me and Terry the parents of our son... and then refuse to let us marry?

I may or may not remove the website at some point.—Dan


I'm gonna sit with my wife now and watch 'Revenge.' You know, becuase dudes really dig that show. I sincerely appreciate the conversation, though. Regards.—BRF


We are taking our son to the movies now. Best to your family—no snark, total sincerity.—Dan


Right, as stipulated, you are great parents. No one is saying don't adopt kids. No one is saying don't have rights similar to married couples. Have kids, get your hospital visits, get a will, and all that. YOU STILL CHOOSE TO NOT PROCREATE. You therefore should not be entitled to the same PRIVILEGES as a married, procreating couple contributing to the numbers of people in our society. Giving otherwise unwanted children a place is noble, but you did not make them and you won't make more. If and when you do, by all means enjoy. Why is the difference lost on you?

And what does that have to do with you using your weaker-minded fan base to promote all that crap about anal debris and lube? Seriously, man, what about that is cool? Or responsible?

You are motivated by your own self-interest, as you should, so I would expect you to not agree. And you shouldn't. But at least acknowledge that Santorum may not be the homophobic self-righteous prick you thought he was. Your points are valid, in your own interest, and we aknowledge that. we just don't believe that is what's best overall.

Gay couples go through a lot of shit to adopt kids, I certainly hope that 100% of them are freakin' all-star parents. Totally not the issue and a bit disingenuous to point that out.—BRF


Why should my child have to shoulder special disadvantages—our inability negatively impacts his safety and security, financially and otherwise—that children who were adopted by heterosexual couples do not? Why are we punished for not procreating when straight couples who could've procreated and choose to adopt instead are not? If i should die, BRF, my husband, a stay-at-home dad for 12 years, will not get my social security benefits, and my son will likely face impoverishment—all because one of his parents has the wrong genitals. That hardly seems fair.

And, I'm sorry, but we allow elderly couples to marry. We allow infertile couples to marry. We allow couples who have no intention of having children to marry. You can't declare that marriage is defined by procreation only when gay people want to marry. If society wants to limit marriage to couples who have their own biological children—adopted doesn't cut it!—then okay. But some consistency, please: Newt should not have been allowed to marry Callista, Rush should not have been allowed to marry whomever it is he's married to now, Bob Dole should not have been allowed to marry Elizabeth Dole, and all opposite-sex couples who discover they're infertile after the wedding should have their marriage licenses revoked.

And what about gay parents who do procreate? Many lesbians "choose to procreate" using donor semen; many gay men go the surrogacy route with donor eggs and rent-a-wombs. These gay men and lesbians are "contributing to the numbers of people" burning through the earth's limited resources—do they get to marry? If not, why not?

If you don't see the logic here, BRF, then I would respectfully suggest that you are the one being disingenuous.—Dan


THIS is what your website should read. THIS is a reasoned argument.

We disagree, but I can respect your position when you artuculate it this way. I won't take the time to rebut, no one's going to change their minds here. And I'm really not that important to you anyway, but I respect the fact that you took the time to write.

Time to work the 2nd job, this economy sucks. Hope your son enjoyed the flick. Turns out Revenge is tomorrow night.—BRF